…according to dozens of soldiers, family members, veterans aid groups, and current and former Walter Reed staff members interviewed by two Washington Post reporters, who spent more than four months visiting the outpatient world without the knowledge or permission of Walter Reed officials.

If the problem was so urgent, why did the Post sit on it for months? In this case, it looks like the Post’s lust for an exclusive trumped its supposed duty to the troops.

That’s exactly right. I say give Iraq all we got. We got nothing to worry about if we are the strongest country in the world. I say let them have it, evey sigle bit of the possibly great country of America. This isn’t some sissy war game, like risk, this is real, and if our “great leaders were bright enough to see that, maybe we could win. Bush needs to open his eyes and face the fact that he is the leader of this country, he he needs to man up and admit that. He’s to concerned with what all his executives tell him. He needs to make the choices on his own, choices that will bring good to this nation. If God did not bless America than we would not be the greatest country, but the fact is he did bless us, all of us, whether we except that or not. We are a country of God, no matter what we do. I say thank you to all of the loyal Christians in this country. You people are the ones that tells God that we can be the best by your name and only your name. We need to remember that God and the loyal Americans made this country and we can bring it down. I say let us face our enemy with great power and destroy them with one swift blow, and if only we had one chance and failed, the Americans would still prove that this is the Home of the Brave and God blesses the U.S.A.

Poor treatment of the men and women who have served this Country in times of war (and peace for that matter) is nothing new. Just look at what happened to the service men and women wounded in Viet Nam. They came back to a Country that treated them as though they were at fault for the wounds they received serving their fellow Americans. Does anyone wonder, then, why war veterans are often among those most adamantly opposed to war?! It’s because they know the terrible cost of armed conflict. Not just lives, but limbs and psyches are sacrificed in combat. And while time may heal the sorrow of the lives lost and prosthetics the loss of limbs, a wounded soul takes a lifetime to treat.

That’s one of the reasons why we should always be very careful when deciding to go to war. Our Country has traditionally failed to provide and has even outright neglected the physical and psychological needs of soldiers and sailors wounded in combat. What made anyone think this conflict will be different?

LST wrote: “If the problem was so urgent, why did the Post sit on it for months? In this case, it looks like the Post’s lust for an exclusive trumped its supposed duty to the troops.”

If the motive is exclusivity, it seems the tactic would be to rush something into print before another news organization beats you to it. Enterprising, thorough, investigative journalism takes time, resources and patience.

If the best the critics can come up with is that it took too long to investigate it, they must have done a pretty good job.

You are aware, are you not, that no one is suggesting that health care be provided by government-employed doctors? I mean, since you’ve gone to so much trouble to inform yourself on this issue rather than just relying on what you’re sure must be so….

As Dana Priest explained, the reason it took so long was because it was difficult to get the individuals to speak on the record. They are still in the military and feared repercussions. As a military Mom who just recently spent 10 days sitting next to my son at Balboa Navy Medical Center, I can tell you that these military members don’t complain if there is a problem and don’t want their family to say anything either. My son was practically apologetic when after 4 hours of complaining he was in severe pain, it was discovered that the pain medication that was supposed to be going through his IV was dripping on the floor, becuase someone had inadvertently disconnected the line.

As far as this relating to Universal Health Care — give me a break. Having a single payer healthcare system is a far cry from socialized medicine. Besides, it was pointed out that the care received at the hospital was exceptional. This has to do with outpatient care and the Army bureaucracy as these men and women await processing for discharge.

I was most appalled at the comment yesterday by the Undersecretary of Defense in charge of Health saying the he had no idea.

Bottom line is that now that people are aware, maybe something will be done to fix the problem. Also, maybe now we as citizens will demand that our Congress critters fund VA healthcare to the level that is required. You think Walter Reed is a problem, take a look at what is going on at the VA because they are short of money and resources.

Quote: “…and you lefties want nationalized health care”. Once again we have a problem that happened under George Bush. Neocons can rail on about how Clinton would’ve done the same thing, but that is just more commentary guessing. The history under Bush is total failure when it comes to addressing an entire problem. The benevolence George talks about is only in his speeches…it never gets to reality, and we have one more travesty among many, that George has his fingerprints on. This speaks more to the truth of the kind of support our troops really get, from the right wing party, than all the eloquent words they like to put in speeches.

I can’t wait for Bush and Cheney to leave office so the American people will have a chance to boo them when they show up in public. They “cooked the books” on Iraq, lied to the American people and then try and use “support the troops” when ever anyone is opposed to the war in Iraq. Yet they sent the troops in without body armour, without adequately armoured vehicles, and the absolutely worst part is they don’t support the wounded troops when they come back….it absolutely shows that Bush the “dumbnificent” and Darth Cheney have to be the worst President and Vice President we have ever elected.

Amen. We do not do enough for our brave men and women who come home. There is not enough healthcare and therapy to ensure their well-being and re-entry into civilian life. For those who blithely stick “Support the Troops” stickers on the back of their cars, I hope they are thinking about those who have come home…and are blithely ignored.

I remember hearing Michael Chertoff, in a live radio interview, saying that he was unaware of refugees in the New Orleans Convention Center, at a time when we’d all been watching them on TV for two days.

This is what happens when an incompetent administration hires people based on ideology rather than on ability.

The reason the care our troops is getting is SO BAD is because the Administration never thought the war would GO SO BADLY….. Before the invasion, they actually fired a guy who said the cost of war could be “up to 100 billion dollars”. WORSE STILL, is the fact that (IF THE WAR WERE TO END TODAY) IT’S NOW ESTIMATED THAT THE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL THE WOUNDED TROOPS COMING BACK ALONE WILL COST AT LEAST 650 BILLION OVER THE NEXT 25 YEARS……WHAT A MESS……. By the way all you anti-government healthcare folks, as of today your taxes pay for 2/3rds of all money spent on heathcare in America, AND IT’s estimated to become 75% soon. WHY, because BUSH pushed through what will become a HUGELY expensive new drug benefit. Talk about speeding up before a coming train wreck…. The Republican’s held the Senate and House and Presidency, the WHOLE TIME this mess in the care our troops is getting was being created. AND WHO DO YOU BLAME FOR THE MESS? “LEFTIES” unreal…….

Sure, Bush inc loves and supports our troops, with dirty filthy hospital wards to make them feel right at home convalescing with their war wounds. I was in Wilford Hall Hospital in San Antonio for a week and it was spotless and super clean (as I would expect and demand); why there and not at Walter Reed, so close to the “White Barn.”

The DarkSide, geeeeeeeee-dubaya and his henchmen, are and have been instructed to present a perception of how great they are to override the actual reality’s of what is, not what or how it must be so.

With their self glorification, pompous, impudent speeches as vehicles of their blatant deceptions.

They think they are the smartest guys in the room.

To them it is all about perception,….not reality; they are neo connned cons conning the people all the time, like a grifter.

They are con-men; men of confidence – crooks- sham artists.

Jeffrey Salzberg has tried to expound on that deceptive practice of Bush Inc but to no avail.

For instance, giving money to faith based organizations and $3 billion will be doled out. Since 2000, only $34 million has been giving and only to people like Haggard the Flaming Pastor, that worship the ground that little geeeeeee-dubya walks on; exclusivly.

It’s about perception equaling deception — not about reality.

Government using smoke and mirrors; can one imagine if the media was on their side? It would have been the greatest propaganda machine whitewashing manipulation of the gullible American populace in US history!!!!

Our troops today have much more support from the government than any time in the past. The Viet Nam vets were called “Baby Killers” and many other names because they were following orders; just like all of the armed forces are trained to do. They came home and were totally unrecognized by the media and were sometimes not even wanted by their own community. The Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome was much more prevalent in this war that nobody wanted either.It is still a struggle for most to of us to even imagine the atrocities that many of them have endured. Our government continues to develop plans to help other nations without helping those that put their lives on the line to accomplish this. Our culture is more interested in the drama and result than cleaning up the pieces. Our troops should not be abandoned by the government.

At some point caring for wounded soldiers became the sole responsibilty of the neocons. Being the good neocon I am I have changed my stance on the war. I support the war 100% but I no longer support the troops.

“If God did not bless America than we would not be the greatest country, but the fact is he did bless us, all of us, whether we except that or not. We are a country of God, no matter what we do. I say thank you to all of the loyal Christians in this country.”

Posted by: Taylor Mallek- Political 13 year old at February 21, 2007 06:18 PM

============================================

Hello Taylor,

I get from your post that you are a Christian, and that you are a patriot. I want to ask you to think about the following questions, please.

1) Do you think that Americans who are not Christians can be loyal Americans?

2) Do you think that God, who you say has blessesd America, has denied his blessings to the other peoples of Earth?

You really should show more respect for the brave women and men, who continue to serve our country in spite of their mistreatment by the government. Shame on you.

Indeed, the right wing’s continued use of our troops as pawns with which to make political points is callous, cynical…and pathetic. Shame on all of you.

> to complain about petty problems.

Let’s look at what “F&B” considers to be “petty problems”:

======================================

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan’s room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

======================================

> Our troops today have much more support from

> the government than any time in the past.

For example, the way the government sent them into battle without the annoying weight of body armor….

By the way all you anti-government healthcare folks, as of today your taxes pay for 2/3rds of all money spent on heathcare in America, AND IT’s estimated to become 75% soon. WHY, because BUSH pushed through what will become a HUGELY expensive new drug benefit.

Heh. I’m no fan of Medicare, but can you imagine the howling had Bush not signed the Plan D benefit?

I’d be reading breathless, badly-punctuated Chron stories about local seniors having to ration their breakfast of Purina.

what really does the government have to spend money on. The least we could do is provide better housing for all of our troops in Iraq. This would maybe help our soldiers out a little. If they know that their country cares about them alot. That’s the least we could do. Even if our soldiers never see any action, they should still be cared for. They are actually over there defending our nation instead of sitting over here eating chips and drinking dr. pepper and watching Sadamms Huessein’s hanging and other things like a fat kid singing numa numa on you tube.

You may know why Garry Trudeau, in Doonesbury, has been so strongly supportive of our troops (especially our wounded troops) that he’s practically a Pentagon hero, despite his other line of Doonesbury cartoons that mercilessly spears Bush. (20-page detailed report is at “WaPo article” link on doonesbury.com .)

So why do you think Trudeau constantly portrays the immediate and long-term healthcare given to Iraq war amputees as being so wisely caring and so spare-no-expense state-of-the-art?

My own answer is: I’ve seen VA hospitals in action and they’re pretty sorry. They need way more resources, and higher expectations. But I think the high-tech limbs and retraining that the war amputees get proves that the VA can target and deliver first-rate care, when the motive is there.

In the case of Iraq war amputees, I think Uncle Sam’s motive is guilt and shame, since on some level we know that the cost of the entire optional adventure in Iraq is far too high to justify.

Dean, you must be mistaken about Carter putting you on the streets. Ronald Reagan put more families on the streets than any president since thre Depression. There were entire communities springing up all around Houston, living under bridges, especially that bridge on 59, north of Houston. Carter had a low of 5.8%unemployment, Reagan had a high of “9.7% unemployment”. You all are just throwing stuff up against the wall, to see what sticks.

Hey Avon, it is all about the money. The VA is still waiting for all the previous Vets to die off so they won’t have to pay out the pensions and especially the ‘Nam Vet’s; they are sick and tired of hearing and filling out the paperwork from them of Agent Orange maladies. I know and they are doing a great job of it; they say “what? Agent Orange? What is that? Fill out this form and we’ll get back at ‘ye.”

Reagan was the one that put that into motion while Frank Sinatra was entertaining “Just Say No” “His wife, y’know the first lady? in the back of the “White Barn.”

Ronald Reagan put more families on the streets than any president since thre Depression. There were entire communities springing up all around Houston, living under bridges, especially that bridge on 59, north of Houston. Carter had a low of 5.8%unemployment, Reagan had a high of “9.7% unemployment”. You all are just throwing stuff up against the wall, to see what sticks.

Posted by: JC at February 22, 2007 05:45 PM

As expected, you cherrypick the data. Comparing Carter’s low to Reagan’s high tells a reader precisely nothing.

If we go to the BLS website, we can see the complete, uncherrypicked data, which paints a different picture:

1977 7.1%

1978 6.0%

1979 5.8%

1980 7.1%

1981 7.6%

1982 9.7%

1983 9.6%

1984 7.5%

1985 7.2%

1986 7.0%

1987 6.2%

1988 5.5%

1989 5.3%

1990 6.8%

1991 7.5%

1992 6.9%

1993 6.1%

1994 5.6%

1995 5.4%

1996 4.9%

1997 4.5%

1998 4.2%

1999 4.0%

2000 4.7%

2001 5.8%

2002 6.0%

2003 5.5%

2004 5.1%

2005 4.6%

An Administration’s policies (and current events) take quite some time to affect the unemployment rate. The rate under “National Malaise” Carter was a mixed bag, as he had the highest “Misery Index” in history (interest rate and inflation rate). In 1979, the Iranian oil embargo hit the U.S. hard (to which Carter reacted by increasing taxes – the Windfall Profits Tax, which the consumer bore), and despite Reagan’s 1981 tax cut (the largest in history), the economy headed into the dumper. This showed up as the 9.7% figure you mentioned. As the economy recovered from the oil price increase and absorbed the benefits of the 1981 tax cut (and massive defense spending), the unemployment rate was cut to 5.5%.

By that point, the Russians threw in the towel over SDI, and Bush 41 cut defense spending ruthlessly and infamously agreed to the 1990 tax increase to get the deficit under control. This provoked a mild recession that Clinton and Carville rode into office. But as the data show, the unemployment rate was already headed down. (Shows what negative media coverage can do.)

In the late 1980s, the economy made a trillion dollar investment in PC-based technology, greatly increasing the amount and quality of information available to industrial managers. That improved information enabled businesses to hire more workers with the confidence that they would be used efficiently making the right products for the right markets. This hiring continued despite the largest tax increase in history in 1993, which in part cost the Democrats the House & Senate in 1994.

As we can see, the unemployment rate was already headed up before Clinton left office, and then 9/11 happened. Since then, the unemployment rate has been headed steadily downward.

If you’re going to cherrypick data, you should pick a subject not so easily verified, and you should do it before an audience not so well-informed.

By the way, the folks on the street in Houston were due to the evil oil company “conspiracy” to cut crude to $10 a barrel and avoid earning billions of dollars of revenue. Sorry to prick your “Blame the Republicans for everything” balloon with the facts.

…give me a break. Having a single payer healthcare system is a far cry from socialized medicine.

Posted by: vmi98mom at February 22, 2007 06:23 AM

A “single payer” anything is called a monopsony. The monopsonistic buyer has absolute control of prices, i.e., professional fees paid to doctors. How is that economically different from directly employing all healthcare professionals? It is not.

Most people understand the adverse consequences of a monopoly. Fewer understand that a monopsony is equally bad.

“…one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combatting al-Qaida…”

Democrats know that all of the insurgents in Iraq are not with Al-Qaeda. So would we court-martial those who kill insurgents that do not follow Al-Qaeda? Get a clue Democrats, this is the War on Terror, not the War on Al-Qaeda.

Matt, neocon is in the dictionary, but not an old dictionary, it has to be a neodictionary. Neocon is a contradiction to conservativism. Neocon(new conservative) is larger government, large deficits, war monger, reinterpret Constitution/Bill of Rights, intrude on state’s rights…. In short it’s everything Bush and followers are doing. Conservatism use to mean smaller everything associated with government, and certainly was opposed against nation building. It was a good theory but power has corrupted it.

T Roo, let me make a correction to your unemployment figures. In April 2000, unemployment was 3.8%, which is the lowest since Jan. 1970. The “HIGHEST PEAKS” of unemployment came under republican administrations. Nixon peaked to a high of 5.9%, Ford peaked at 8.5%, Reagan peaked at a high of 9.7%, Bush 41 peaked at 7.5%, and in June, 2003, unemployment rose to 6.4%. These can be verified if you choose not to cherry pick. Most of your post was commentary, which has no verifiable stats, but we are all entitled to an opinion.

TRoosevelt’s unemployment data is, I presume, correct. But his remark that it “takes time” for policy to change unemployment is not necessarily true. Reagan put drastic economic change into effect very fast in early 1981, thanks to a compliant, even excited, Congress. It took only months for broad government cutbacks, deferring to “supply side” / “trickle down” theory (whichever is your preferred name for it), to ripple-effect economic activity into a retrenchment. The rich got richer and everyone else got poorer real fast.

Still, I think it’s wrong to tell Dean that the economy didn’t put his family on the streets during the Carter Administration. The US economy can do that to some people anytime, often through no fault of their own. We may say it’s no fault of Carter’s either, and I do. But it’s only human to blame the guy whose watch something happens on.

Dean may have a deep reason to fault Carter. But the rest of us don’t have good reason to pile on.

“There were entire communities springing up all around Houston, living under bridges, especially that bridge on 59, north of Houston”

Sure, JC. I think your memory is gone. The “communities” living under bridges were moving here from the Rust Belt by the millions because they lost their houses up north because the rate was so high, their jobs were shipped to Mexico and overseas, and OPEC was in full swing.

When Reagan took over, I started working overtime and bought a new house and had more money than I could imagine since then. So keep misinformising.

“Price inflation caused interest rates to rise to unprecedented levels (above 12% per year). The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President. Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable.”

…your post was commentary, which has no verifiable stats, but we are all entitled to an opinion.

Posted by: JC at February 23, 2007 09:46 AM

JC, they were not my unemployment figures. They were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and I provided the link.

So a subject that has no “verifiable stats” is just commentary? So much for history, geography and political science. My post provided a backdrop to the 30 years of unemployment data in an effort to weave together both Presidential actions and economic events. Your implicit assertion that the President completely controls the economy and that inflation, interest rates, tax rates, government spending levels, private investment levels, worker productivity have no independent economic effect reflects a lack of understanding of how investors, employers and consumers react to the economic landscape in front of them.

Instead of rebutting my points, you just call them “commentary.” Another example of “when you can’t defend your position, go on offense and attack your critics.”

Dean, my memory is the one working fine. Your mischaracterization of people moving here because they couldn’t afford to keep their houses, and their jobs were going overseas, is incorrect. They lost their job, Dean, because of “REAGANOMICS”. Between 1981 and 1992, 7.5 million people were added to below poverty level. We were 994 million “in debt” in fiscal 1981 and 2,867 BILLION in debt when Reagan left. The trade deficit quadrupled under Reagan, but in 1986 congress created the Tax Reform Act, which closed 500 billion in loopholes and tax shelters. The Congressional budget office averaged 3.4% economic growth in the ’70′s, and 2.7% growth in the ’80′s. Average savings fell in the 80′s from 8% to 6.5%. 9.7% unemployment was twice what it is now, and it is the highest of any unemployment numbers of the BLS that go back to 1948. To malign a president because you were personally affected is not the same as millions of people who lost their jobs under Raygun, and migrated south because there was still work to be found. You can’t take a microscopic view of one person’s perspective or experience and translate that to a national trend or average. You have to look at the entire picture. Now, does that stick good enough, for you?

On the same day they landed on the moon I was wounded in VietNam. Many moons later I awoke in Japan and months after that I was flown back to the world. In the years since then, as a veteran rated 100% diasabled because of wounds received in combat, I’ve had periods of excellent to adequate health care from both military and veterans hospitals. And in the years since I and my brothers have been kicked about as political blame targets of convenience by both sides of the fence. Fix it, or don’t, your passionate vemon directed at each other means nothing. Your blame game is an unfunny joke. You want to thank me for my service? Shut the *!#@ up and pay the bill you promised when the band was playing and the flags were waving.

1:anybody can be a loyal american if they’re not Christians. I wa sjust implying the fact that we are , for the most part, a country of God. I think it will make all the more difference if we were Christians, all of us.

2: God loves all of the world, but most of the world has turned to evil. In my opinion God blesses the U.S. because he knows for the most part we are a country under his name. It’s a good question actually. It took me a while to think about.

So here are my answers, like em or not, tell me what you think of them.

Joe, your Feb.23rd, 12:11 PM, posting of “…if a real conservative has a slight different opinion than a Democrat, he becomes a full blown neocon”. Your wrong about that, I do not confuse conservatism with neocon. Frankly, real conservatism is almost a lost dinosaur these days, and some like to equate themselves with conservatism, because it lies with the Republican side of the aisle. Conservatism has always meant smaller government, in every respect, but since Bush, and 9/11, a different connotation has taken over under the guise of conservatism. Nation building, invading a non threatening sovereign nation, investing billions in a war of choice, intrusions on private citizens Constitutional rights, is not the intent of conservatism, and those that continue to support the aforementioned Bushco agenda, are not true conservatives, just as all democrats are not liberals. Neocons are the extreme, which qualifies as ideologues.

One of the reasons I’ve not been on the cronblogs as much as I had been; I found out the people with whom we are exchanging ideas live on spaceplanes other than the rest of humanity.

They are not free thinkers, JohnG. They are much like simple windup toys designed only to take preprogramed leftward movements and in so they ever walk, think, and speak in circles.

If these people had been raised in Iran for the past 20-plus years, they would be lined up behind Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; believe the U.S. is The Great Satan and “that the Holocaust is a myth,” quoting the Iran president.

JohnG, these people have no concept of history. I’m sure if you herded them into theaters and showed the “original” tent cities, housed by WWI vets storming the Capital demanding at least some of the things they were promised by the Democratic Congress, they would say, ‘it is a myth and never happened.’

By the way, it’s the Congress’ job to take care of wounded service personnel, not the president’s. Vet Hospitals run on money provided by the Congress, not the Executive Branch. Why was this not put on the Democratic Congress’ 100-Day agenda?

Your mischaracterization of people moving here because they couldn’t afford to keep their houses, and their jobs were going overseas, is incorrect. They lost their job, Dean, because of “REAGANOMICS”. Between 1981 and 1992, 7.5 million people were added to below poverty level.

Posted by: JC at February 24, 2007 08:04 PM

JC, I moved here in 1979 after graduating from college because the economy in the Rust Belt was in the tank from 40 years of excessive union wage and healthcare demands. These same costs are crushing GM, Ford and Chrusler right now. Reagan didn’t become President until Jan 1981, so how did his strategy affect the economy 2 years earlier?

The easy answer is the the Democratic leadership could not give one crap about the members of the military. They currently profess concern only because it is a politically expedient mechanism with which to beat up the President. While true, this answer is incomplete.

The better answer is that we as a nation have always forgotten our veterans the moment the cannons fall silent. Someone on the blog posted a poem on this point in the recent past that I wish I could remember.

The only reason that I can come up with as to why this consistently happens under both parties is that the military is politically silent. They do not vote as a block, and it is illegal for their leadership to advocate any political positions to the troops. It is illegal for them to form unions, and they generally vote, if at all, in their home districts as opposed to the jurisdictions of their domestic garrisons. Accordingly, their votes are diluted and thus our leaders ignore them in the press of other demands from more influential constituents.

The alternative would be to permit political organization of our military, but we all probably recognize the hazards of that – the prospect of a coup.

As a citizen, I recognize with embarrassment the complete legitimacy of Liberal Texas Democrat’s demand that we keep our words of thanks and provide the care that our vets need. We owe them everything.

Lazarus, I have been impressed by the fact that over the months I have on numerous occasions admitted points to those on the left, but rarely has anyone on that side of the aisle responded in kind. The Left will say that’s because they don’t make mistakes, but no mortal can make that claim. At the risk of analyzing an entire group, I suspect their passion overpowers their honesty (definition of ‘fanatic”: marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea). When a conservative refutes a liberal point, it is treated like a fart in church – to be ignored rather than acknowledged.

You are entirely correct about “spaceplanes.” I am reminded very much of the line from “Apollo 13,” where the ground-based engineers realize the spcecraft has a battery capacity problem. Ed Harris is arguing about it, and the engineer says “Look, you’re telling me about what you want, and I’m telling you what we’ve got.” The Liberals focus entirely on the utopian goals, and never on how those goals will get accomplished in the real world.

They are sure they can fix all bad behavior through persuasion. They fail to grasp that some folks are just evil (and that the vast majority of the rest simply act in their own self interests). Moreover, they fail to understand that some conflicts are inevitable, and that it is usually better to join the battle as soon as that inevitability becomes clear. In many ways, they are the most determined of all to repeat the mistakes of history (Notwithstanding the lessons Hitler charged us 20 million dead to learn, these guys still want to wait until the other guy strikes first). And they attribute this realpolitick view of the world to hardheartedness, rather than the desire to save the most lives in the long run.

They could never have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Yet they would never acknowledge that the consequence of that non-decision would have been the predicted deaths of 1 million Gis and Japanese. Liberals live in the world of “Let’s pretend there are no adverse consequences to our decisions.”

In the end, I keep posting here because of my own idealistic belief that if the truth is explained rationally often enough, someone will recognize it and question those who advocate unrealistic and naïve positions. What truly troubles me is that the Democrats have been in control for 7 weeks now, and 3 flag officers (Petraeus, Fallon & Casey) have undergone confirmation hearings, yet no serious inquiry has been made about strategy and tactics. The one thing the Democrats could have done, i.e., force the Administration to explain its piss-poor prosecution of the war, they have utterly failed to do, thinking it better to frustrate future success.

The Republican train ran off the rails when Gingrich left, and the Democrats have guided their own train onto the same tracks with the throttle pushed to the floor. There was much hope for reform when they won in November, and it is comng to naught.

T Roo. I understand anyone can have their own personal economic depression at any time, but you keep characterizing your problem from a neocon position and give the reasons that suit a political agenda. You choose to blame a democratic president for your problems, and then you accuse unions of 40 years of excessive wage and healthcare demands. You have no understanding of the situation, of labor, or the Corporations you hold so highly. American auto manufacturers have suffered an incompetent connection with the public for too long. In the ’70′s, Detroit refused to acknowledge that Americans wanted smaller more efficient autos. The first gas crisis, of the early ’70′s allowed the Japanese to get a firm foothold on our shores. It is the incompetence of their management to provide their workers with a quality product that the American people want. Camry’s are manufactured in Kentucky, and hire union employees, pay comparable wages, and good benefit packages, and Toyota is expected to be the largest auto manufacturer, in America, this year. Detroit missed the boat again due to the Japanese with better marketing strategies. Detroit invested in gas guzzling, high profit margined vehicles, large pickups, large expensive SUVs, and as usual, the gas price increases in the last few years, woke the public up, but not Detroit. Finally, you can throw out an opinion of anything, concerning the economy, but when you characterize it from a hardcore, anti labor, pro corporate, pro republican, uninformed, view point, then it becomes less a discussion of the problem, and just becomes more of a campaign rhetorical exchange.

JC, along the Ohio River stretching from just northwest of Sewickly, PA to Aliquippa, PA was the Aliquippa Steel Works of Jones & Laughlin Steel. That plant was 7½ miles long – one continuous building, the largest ever built in the world. Iron ore came in one end by barge, and every conceivable type of steel product came out of various doors along the way.

From 1979 to 1995, as each phase of the steel-making process lost to its competition, portions of that that building were dismantled and the land turned into a riverside park. In 1995, the last part of the building was demolished, and with it, the last of 30,000 jobs disappeared. My father-in-law paid for my wife’s college running machines in that plant.

J&L and the other U.S. steel companies had two things running against them – the U.S. rebuilt the steel industry of Japan with alll new equipment following WWII, which gave them an enormous long-term advantage. The other factor was that Japan has tremendously lower labor costs. It was cheaper for companies to ship ore from the U.S. to Japan and Korea, turn it into steel and return it to the U.S. for bridges and buildings. Steel is steel, unless you want subscribe to the Japanese government’s protectionist view that American baseball bats are inferior to Japanese baseball bats.

My position is not a “hardcore, anti labor, pro corporate, pro republican, uninformed” viewpoint, it is just factual. The membership of the United Steel Workers was put out of work by union leadership that insisted on high wages that forced the steel companies to price its steel so high that no one wanted to buy it.

I don’t know why you keep telling folks that being economically realistic is “anti-labor.” Much of your post above is 100% valid. Detroit’s management of the auto business (particularly Roger Smith in the 80s) was almost criminally negligent. Their inability to translate consumer tastes into finished product is simply unbelievable. But even if they were able to produce cars of equal or better quality & desirability as the Camry & Accord, would they be able to charge $3,000 more per vehicle than the Japanese do? That how much extra American labor costs.

Lastly, how exactly do you conclude that “To malign a president because you were personally affected is not the same as millions of people who lost their jobs under Raygun, and migrated south because there was still work to be found” is NOT an opinion, but “These same costs are crushing GM, Ford and Chrysler right now. Reagan didn’t become President until Jan 1981, so how did his strategy affect the economy 2 years earlier?” IS an opinion?

Your post has more facts and fewer adjectives (much better), but you still have an overly healthy dose of “attack your critics.” If your objective is to inspire your opponents, you’re continuing to do a great job.

…you keep characterizing your problem from a neocon position and give the reasons that suit a political agenda…

Posted by: JC at February 26, 2007 09:21 AM

I just realized that you completely misunderstand my politics and perspective. Your remark suggests that I “squeeze” the facts and my reasoning based on a desire to support Republican politics no matter what. I approach things 180º out from that. I analyze facts and situations based on my view of how the the world works, and then look for the party that most closely addresses those principles or issues. Nixon and Kissinger are/were odious people, but they understood the reality of superpower relations better than anyone else. I diverge from the Republican platform whenever my views take me there, e.g., I am pro-choice. Not because I think it is right, but because it is ineffective and sets a bad precedent for the government to legislate a morality with which the citizenry does not agree.

You may wish to view the political spectrum as being limited to the extremes of black or white (with everyone to your right being “black”), but those of us with a mixture of views (some of which are contrary to yours) do not feel constrained by that narrow view. There is gray in the spectrum.

…As evidenced by the fact that some of them have actually served in the military, as well as by the way they sent our troops to fight without body armor or adequately armored vehicles and then glibly told them, “You fight the war you’ve got.”

…As evidenced by the fact that some of them have actually served in the military, as well as by the way they sent our troops to fight without body armor or adequately armored vehicles and then glibly told them, “You fight the war you’ve got.”

Posted by: Jeffrey E. Salzberg at February 27, 2007 09:20 PM

I have previously posted that the Administration has much to answer for in its prosecution of the war, including initiating the war before the roster of equipment was complete. (However, the need for all Humvees to be armored was not known until the situation in Iraq progressed.)

But the Administration’s failures have no bearing on the insincerity of the Democratic leadership. Even Murtha is using “pretend” concern for the troops as the premise for his “slow bleed” funding limitations (which fortunately is going nowhere). There has been no effort by the Democrats to dissect the Administration’s policies to find the causes of the failure to-date and to highlight solutions.

The Democrats have harped for months/years about “stay the course,” yet they offer no intelligent suggestions for a different course, other than full retreat.

Pelosi misreads the Nov 2006 election results – she thinks the people want “to tell President Bush ‘No, no, no’ on Iraq.” In fact, the American people want progress. The “disapproval” numbers reflect their despair, not their affirmative desire to retreat.

“‘The American people have lost faith in President Bush’s course of action in Iraq, and they are demanding a new direction,’ said Ms. Pelosi.” This was her statement on Feb 14 as she was advocating full retreat from Iraq. I have never known Americans to collectively desire failure.

The piss-poor execution of the war is on the Republicans. The choice of the political expedience of pulling the plug rather than insisting on fixing the situation is on the Democrats. My point is that they have settled for partisanship rather than rising to statesmanship.

I grow weary of having to respond to the criticism that the Democrats offer no alternatives on Iraq and therefore we have no choice but to stay the course — even if it’s wrong.

This is the Democrats’ alternative: WITHDRAW THE TROOPS AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT SUFFERING GREATER CASUALTIES. Do it in 60 days, in 90 days, in 120 days — but do it soon.

Republican utterances to the contrary, this is obviously what the voters said in the November elections. We have listened to White House rhetoric that it is still possible to “win” the war, and we don’t believe it. We fought and won World War II in less time than it has taken us to pacify Iraq.

The Democrats didn’t get us into this predicament. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz fabricated the WMD evidence and were the architects of the Iraq invasion. As we fall deeper and deeper into the morass and support from the American public withers, the few remaining war advocates demand to know what the Democrats propose to do about it. Doesn’t that just reek of hypocrisy? Well, it reeks anyway.

Gents and ladies: there comes a time when you have to cut your losses. As Kenny Rogers says, you need to know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em. It’s time for the US to fold up the tents and go home.

Yes, we are leaving Iraq in worse shape than before we went in (more than 650,000 Iraqi dead in addition to over 3,100 American lives), but there is no solution that we in the West want to hear.

It was foolhardy and naive for us to believe we could force the Iraqis to embrace Western-style democracy. The best way to get people in other countries and cultures to accept your values is to set a good example. Lately we’ve been doing a lousy job of that.

I grow weary of having to respond to the criticism…that the Democrats offer no alternatives…

Posted by: derek at February 28, 2007 06:49 PM

I grow weary of the Democrats calling “surrender” a plan.

I served (stateside) with the 101st Airborne. This is relevant only in that new members of the Division are inculcated with its storied history. This was the Division that stood alone at Bastogne against overwhelming German forces surrounding them. When asked to surrender by the Germans, MG McCauliffe famously responded “Nuts.”

Based on the philosophy underlying your post, your response in that situation would apparently have been to accept the German demand. “Not worth it, odds are against us, need to stop U.S. troop deaths.”

I am just as sure that your views are sincere as I am that they completely wrong.

I am very familiar with the “Battling Bastards of Bastogne,” JohnG. When I was a child, my father told me stories about the battle because his brother fought under Gen. McCauliffe. This was a situation where it was critical that the US troops hold their ground to stop the German counter-offensive. I don’t see the comparison to Iraq.

I’m not the kind of person who hoists the white flag of surrender easily, John. In 1979 I was diagnosed with cancer. I’m convinced that my fighting spirit and will to live helped me overcome this dreaded disease and has enabled me to live another 27 years. When I was younger, I was a fierce competitor in sports and hated to lose. As you can no doubt tell from my posts, I don’t mind a good fight or argument.

Although I disagreed with the need to invade Iraq, I never stopped supporting our troops. They are extremely capable as soldiers and fighters. However, they are not good policemen. We are asking them to do something they aren’t trained to do. After removing Saddam, we should have immediately turned over the reins of government to the Iraqis and allowed them to determine what was to come next. Staying only strengthened the view that we were there to occupy and exploit their oil.

Yes, withdrawing probably would have meant either that the Baathists in the army would have regained control or that the Shi’ite majority would assume power, but what else could we reasonably expect?

If the stated goal was to eliminate the threat from Saddam, we did that. Staying around for another 3 to 4 years only stirred up resentment against the “crusader occupiers” and put us in the midst of a civil war.

If we had left in the weeks or months after deposing the dictator Saddam, many in the Arab world would see us quite differently today.